The madness grows internationally; Victorian sex values take over the world; get ready for people being thrown off buildings in the USA and UK in 2020.

www.insideedition.com/brittany-zamora-se...ar-old-student-54430

Again I know nothing more than anybody else reading or watching the news but this looks like a very attractive young woman and if the 13 year old boy looked, as many do, like a late teenager of 16 or 17, it seems a very harsh sentence; indeed, it appears a slap on the wrist would be more fair than any prison at all, let alone 20 years. Or am I being unfair? Should all children be equally protected and not treated individually?

Protecting children from being taken advantage of by the people who are supposed to care for them is not "Victorian values. It is common sense.

Agreed Honey but also, if individual circumstances are different, so should be the level of both protection and punishment.

JK2006 wrote:
Agreed Honey but also, if individual circumstances are different, so should be the level of both protection and punishment.

The circumstances are that he was her pupil and she was his teacher.
There is nothing different in this situation to all the other tales of sleazy gets that take advantage of their charges.

Well as I said I don't know the details; if he was a small prepubescent child and she had been 47 and not 27 I would think different and like you I feel the responsibility in a teacher/pupil relationship is important but I think 20 years in prison for clearly willing and consensual sex is extreme and illustrates a social malaise.

We covered similar ground in a recent thread about a male teacher from the UK.

The notion that sex is something harmful, from which anyone needs to be protected, is an ideological fiction. That said, there are various recommendations one might make to help make sexual activity enjoyable and healthy, especially for the inexperienced. The best medium for this is sex education.

Imprisoning this woman for 20 years for violating an abstract principle, rather than actually causing any tangible harm is grossly disproportionate. It's also not rationally connected to the aim of protecting the student from sex - even if this were a valid aim. If the lad wants to continue being sexually active, imprisoning this woman won't stop him.

So once again, I agree with JK. This should be treated as a professional discipline matter at the very most.

It used to alarm me in the USA where teenagers seem to look 5 years older than they are. Perhaps it's the hormones pumped into their food.

Of course the teacher would have known his age.

I can't help thinking if this was France the parents would discreetly retire to the drawing room thinking "thank God the randy little bugger will get it out of his system" or Italy where Mamma would scream Blue Murder but then just go back to cooking pasta and Papa would be envious.

Or a fabulous art house film director would use the tale as inspiration for a beautifully shot movie (without a car chase) of young love experiences and end up receiving an award at the Venice Film Festival and the young 13 yr old actor would be hailed as a new talent..

The problem is Honey..we are flawed individuals (not me of course ) and people act on impulses and instinct and it's always been that way and always will be.

And the lad? Wonder if this may make him feel years of guilt knowing the teacher is incarcerated because he didn't just go and have a wank in the toilets.

Brilliant Hedda; your best post ever (and after 15 years that's pretty amazing).

hedda wrote:


And the lad? Wonder if this may make him feel years of guilt knowing the teacher is incarcerated because he didn't just go and have a wank in the toilets.

That's a very good point.

Those who want to prohibit and punish underage sex seem to want it both ways. Sometimes it's argued that sex acts in themselves are harmful - but only to underage people. In the absence of physical injury or disease transmission, this is self evidently bollocks because sex has been specifically designed by God/Mother Nature/evolution to be great fun.

Other times it's argued that the consequences that might, for some people, ensue from underage sex could possibly might be bad. Let's be honest, these consequences are usually embarrassment, regret or shame at having made poor choices of behaviour. But they're renamed "psychological harm," rather than "let that be a lesson to you." And if, as Hedda astutely points out, the lad is wracked with guilt for causing this poor woman's misery when he's come to no harm, then the state is committing child abuse by its own rationale.

hedda wrote:
It used to alarm me in the USA where teenagers seem to look 5 years older than they are. Perhaps it's the hormones pumped into their food.

Of course the teacher would have known his age.

I can't help thinking if this was France the parents would discreetly retire to the drawing room thinking "thank God the randy little bugger will get it out of his system" or Italy where Mamma would scream Blue Murder but then just go back to cooking pasta and Papa would be envious.

Or a fabulous art house film director would use the tale as inspiration for a beautifully shot movie (without a car chase) of young love experiences and end up receiving an award at the Venice Film Festival and the young 13 yr old actor would be hailed as a new talent..

The problem is Honey..we are flawed individuals (not me of course ) and people act on impulses and instinct and it's always been that way and always will be.

And the lad? Wonder if this may make him feel years of guilt knowing the teacher is incarcerated because he didn't just go and have a wank in the toilets.

You dont give in to "impulses" over and over again. That's not an impulse- That's a plan!

I mean, I agree that the sentence is a bit harsh compared to over here, where you can actually kill someone and get far less time in prison, but what she did was very wrong.


Maybe its all the corn they eat? You can use it to build up livestock so it might have the same effect.

Randall wrote:
hedda wrote:


And the lad? Wonder if this may make him feel years of guilt knowing the teacher is incarcerated because he didn't just go and have a wank in the toilets.

That's a very good point.

Those who want to prohibit and punish underage sex seem to want it both ways. Sometimes it's argued that sex acts in themselves are harmful - but only to underage people. In the absence of physical injury or disease transmission, this is self evidently bollocks because sex has been specifically designed by God/Mother Nature/evolution to be great fun.

Other times it's argued that the consequences that might, for some people, ensue from underage sex could possibly might be bad. Let's be honest, these consequences are usually embarrassment, regret or shame at having made poor choices of behaviour. But they're renamed "psychological harm," rather than "let that be a lesson to you." And if, as Hedda astutely points out, the lad is wracked with guilt for causing this poor woman's misery when he's come to no harm, then the state is committing child abuse by its own rationale.

You could call it child abuse every time a parent is jailed. (And this is supposedly why women are usually not, except it makes no sense now that men bring up the children equally)

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...what she did was very wrong.


Well, in the context of teacher-student relationship, I agree that it's wrong. There are relevant ethical requirements that aim to preserve the purpose of such a relationship. So I think professional discipline and sanctions would be justified.

However, take out that element and it's not obvious to me why having sex with a willing partner who suffers no ill-effects should be considered wrong.

Why do you think it's wrong, honey?

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...what she did was very wrong.


Well, in the context of teacher-student relationship, I agree that it's wrong. There are relevant ethical requirements that aim to preserve the purpose of such a relationship. So I think professional discipline and sanctions would be justified.

However, take out that element and it's not obvious to me why having sex with a willing partner who suffers no ill-effects should be considered wrong.

Why do you think it's wrong, honey?


I dont think you can remove "that element" in considering the possible damage.
It would not be ideal if a thirteen year old had sex with a random twenty year old, but at least a random twenty year old wouldn't be in a position of authority over them, which limits their choices and is a pretty rubbish position for anyone to be in.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I dont think you can remove "that element" in considering the possible damage.
It would not be ideal if a thirteen year old had sex with a random twenty year old, but at least a random twenty year old wouldn't be in a position of authority over them, which limits their choices and is a pretty rubbish position for anyone to be in.

Oh come on, honey, use your imagination. It's not hard to consider a notional case of a 20 something woman having sex with the 13 year-old next door.

You said this would not be ideal: few sexual encounters are. But why do you think it would be wrong, assuming both have a good time and suffer no illness or injury?

I get your point Randall, but the challenge back is 1. Do you draw no line at all? And 2. How do you know no harm was done, how do you measure this? But yes, I think the sentence itself is informed by hysteria rather than reason, agreed.

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I dont think you can remove "that element" in considering the possible damage.
It would not be ideal if a thirteen year old had sex with a random twenty year old, but at least a random twenty year old wouldn't be in a position of authority over them, which limits their choices and is a pretty rubbish position for anyone to be in.

Oh come on, honey, use your imagination. It's not hard to consider a notional case of a 20 something woman having sex with the 13 year-old next door.

You said this would not be ideal: few sexual encounters are. But why do you think it would be wrong, assuming both have a good time and suffer no illness or injury?

Nobody said I thought it was "wrong" except you, Randall. You are jumping the gun!

Oh yes you did.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...what she did was very wrong.


Or are you confining the wrongness to fucking a student? And you agree with me that having sex with a willing 13 year isn't necessarily wrong in itself without any more to it?

wyot wrote:
Do you draw no line at all?
I don't think drawing a line between heavily punished sex and exactly the same sex but not punished is at all useful. The more difficult question is what do we have instead?

How do you know no harm was done, how do you measure this?
Harm is tangible injury or loss. Sex can cause harm in the form of STDs, or *ahem* romantic damage for the careless or over-vigorous. None of that was reported in this case. And even if it was, it shouldn't necessarily be criminally prohibited.

Randall wrote:
Oh yes you did.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...what she did was very wrong.


Or are you confining the wrongness to fucking a student? And you agree with me that having sex with a willing 13 year isn't necessarily wrong in itself without any more to it?

Yes. I was only referring to someone abusing the trust of care.

Other circumstances vary so wildly that it would be impossible to generalise.